IN THE CASE OF:  	Mr. 

      BOARD DATE:  	22 May 2013

      CASE NUMBER:  	AR20130000688
___________________________________________________________________________

Board Determination and Directed Action

After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.





      
      Presiding Officer
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.

THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT:

1.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his discharge from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was informed that after 6 months he could apply for an upgrade in order to receive Veterans benefits.  He further states that after returning from Afghanistan was involved in a car accident that killed a fellow Soldier and severely injured him and was unable to walk for a month.  When he finally returned to his unit, his chain of command was not very supportive.

DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION:

a. Application Receipt Date:		7 January 2013
b. Discharge received:			General, under honorable conditions
c. Date of Discharge:			26 June 2012
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE:		Misconduct (AWOL), AR 635-200, 14-12c(1), 							JKD, RE-3
e. Unit of assignment:			A Co, 1st Bn, 502d IN Regiment, Fort Campbell, KY 
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term:  	5 February 2009, 4 years, 16 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service:  	3 years, 0 months, 8 days
h. Total Service:			3 years, 0 months, 8 days
i. Time Lost:				135 days 
j. Previous Discharges:		None
k. Highest Grade Achieved:		E-4
l. Military Occupational Specialty:	11B10, Infantry
m. GT Score:				108
n. Education:				GED
o. Overseas Service:			SWA
p. Combat Service:			Afghanistan (100515-110420)
q. Decorations/Awards:		ARCOM, NDSM, ACM-CS, GWOTSM, ASR, OSR, 						NATO MDL, CIB, VUA
r. Administrative Separation Board: 	No
s. Performance Ratings:		None
t. Counseling Statements:		Yes
u. Prior Board Review:			No
SUMMARY OF SERVICE:		
	
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 February 2009 for a period of 4 years and 16 weeks.  He was 17 years old at the time and had a high school equivalency (GED).  The applicant served for 3 years and 8 days, had a combat tour and received an ARCOM and a CIB.  At the time his discharge proceeding were initiated, he was serving at Fort Campbell, KY.  



SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES

1.  On 5 June 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to process him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(1), by reason of misconduct; specifically for being AWOL for 135 days between 30 November 2011 and          13 April 2012.

2.  Based on the above misconduct, the unit commander recommended a general, under honorable conditions discharge and informed the applicant of his rights.

3.  On 5 June 2012, the applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement on his behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the Army and waiver of further rehabilitative efforts.  The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed action and recommended approval of a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  

4.  On 7 June 2012, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  

5.  The applicant was separated on 26 June 2012, under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c(1), for misconduct (AWOL), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge, an SPD code of JKD and an RE code of 3.

6.  The applicant’s record contains one period of lost time for being AWOL for a total of 135 days between 30 November 2011 and 13 April 2012; the mode of return is not contained in his record.

EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD

1.  The applicant's disciplinary record includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL (111130-120413).  His punishment consisted of reduction to E-1, forfeiture of pay in the amount of $742.00 for two months, 15 days of extra duty, 15 days of restriction, and an oral reprimand (FG).

2.  Four negative counseling statements dated between 13 April 2012 and 30 May 2012 for AWOL, notification of intent to discharge him from the Army, and debt to the US government.

EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT 

A DD Form 214.

POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: 

None provided with the application.

REGULATORY AUTHORITY

1.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or being absent without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate; however, a general, under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.  

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.

3.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The applicant’s request for an upgrade of the characterization of his discharge was carefully considered.  However, after examining his military records, the document and issues submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant's discharge.  

2.  The applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of his service was not consistent with the Army's standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  It brought discredit on the Army and was prejudicial to good order and discipline.  By his serious misconduct, the applicant diminished the quality of his service below that meriting an honorable discharge.  His service was marred by an Article 15 for being AWOL for 135 days, such offense being a serious violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

3.  The applicant provided no independent corroborating evidence demonstrating that either the command's action was erroneous or that his service mitigated the misconduct or poor duty performance.  

4.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his characterization to honorable and contends that he suffered some injuries as a result of a car accident and could not return to his post.  When he finally returned, his chain of command was not supportive of him and initiated discharge proceedings.  However, by regulation, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is normally appropriate for a member separated by reason of misconduct.  It appears the applicant’s generally good record of service was the basis for his receiving a general, under honorable conditions discharge instead of the normal UOTHC discharge.  The record contains no evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the applicant’s command, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

5.  The applicant contends that medical issues prevented him from returning to his unit.  However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of any medical condition.  Further, the record does not contain any medical evidence to indicate a problem which would have rendered the applicant disqualified for further military service with either medical limitation or medication. 

6.  The applicant also contends he was told to apply for benefits after 6 months.  However, the US Army does not have, nor has it ever had a policy to upgrade a discharge based on time elapsed since the discharge.  Each case is decided on its own merits based on all factors contained in the official record or as submitted by the applicant.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  Moreover, eligibility for veteran's benefits to include educational benefits under the Post-9/11 or Montgomery GI Bill does not fall within the purview of the Army Discharge Review Board.  Accordingly, the applicant should contact a local office of the Department of Veterans Affairs for further assistance.

7.  Records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

8.  Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. 



SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING:

Type of Hearing:  Records Review	Date:  22 May 2013		Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  No

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Board Vote:
Character  	Change:  0	No Change:  5
Reason	Change:  0	No Change:  5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214:		No
Change Characterization to:	No Change
Change Reason to:			No Change
Change RE Code to:		NA
Grade Restoration to:		NA
Change Authority for Separation:	NA
Other:					NA





































Legend:
AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record	FG - Field Grade	IADT – Initial Active Duty Training	 	RE - Reentry
AWOL - Absent Without Leave	GD - General Discharge	NA - Not applicable	SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge	HS - High School	NIF - Not in File	SPCM - Special Court Martial
CG - Company Grade Article 15	HD - Honorable Discharge	OAD - Ordered to Active Duty	UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge  
CID - Criminal investigation Department	MP – Military Police	OMPF - Official Military Personnel File	UOTH - Under Other Than                           			               Honorable Conditions
ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont)		  AR20130000688		

Page 2 of 6 pages



ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB)

CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE



1